ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Transcription

1 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION by Donald R. Philbin Jr. * and Audrey Lynn Maness ** I. INTRODUCTION II. HISTORICAL BACKDROP EPANDED USE AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION III. THE CURRENT SURVEY PERIOD MORE ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION A. Pre-Arbitration Challenges Motions to Compel Unconscionability Determined by Circumstances at Time of Contract: Overstreet v. Contigroup Cos Benefits of Agreement Estop Denial of Arbitration Clause: Hellenic Investment Fund, Inc. v. Det Norske Veritas Fight Among Insureds Over Proceeds Not Within Arbitration Clause: Tittle v. Enron Corp Dismiss Rather Than Stay Arbitrable Disputes: Brown v. Pacific Life Insurance Co Administrative Dismissal (Stay) Pending Arbitration Not Appealable: CitiFinancial Corp. v. Harrison Specialized Federal Law Results in Arbitration of State Injury Claims: Acosta v. Master Maintenance & Construction Inc Agreement to Arbitrate Future Personal Injury Claims Upheld: Terrebonne v. K-Sea Transportation Corp B. Post-Arbitration Motions to Vacate Undisclosed Trivial Past Association Not Evident Partiality : Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp * Don Philbin is an AV-rated attorney, mediator, arbitrator, and consultant based in San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Philbin s experience as a commercial litigator, general counsel, and president of hundred million dollar-plus communications and technology-related companies augment his business and legal education. He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (Woodward/White, Inc. 2007, 2008). ** J.D., summa cum laude, Pepperdine University School of Law, 2007; B.S., Central Michigan University, While at Pepperdine, Ms. Maness served as a Note & Comment Editor for the Pepperdine Law Review and as a research assistant for Professor Roger Alford and Dean Ken Starr. Ms. Maness is currently clerking for the Honorable Steven M. Colloton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Ms. Maness is admitted to the Texas Bar and plans to practice law in Houston, Texas. 445

2 446 TEAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40: Exceeding Scope and Manifest Disregard Are High Thresholds: Apache Bohai Corp. LDC v. Texaco China BV Denied Motion for Continuance Filed One Day Before Hearing Not Misconduct: Laws v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Deference to Labor Arbitrator Results in Vacatur Reversal: Resolution Performance Products, L.L.C. v. Paper Allied Industrial Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, Local Misconduct, Prejudice, or Blatant Disregard Required for Vacatur: American Laser Vision, P.A. v. Laser Vision Institute, L.L.C IV. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION With the exception of one nuanced case involving Enron s Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, all parties signing arbitration provisions or accepting the benefits of contracts containing such provisions were compelled to arbitration during the survey period June 1, 2006, through May 31, And after-the-fact challenges to arbitration awards and to the arbitrators who made them were no more successful. 2 In fact, not a single vacatur stood after a divided en banc court turned a trial court vacatur and panel affirmation around in Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp. 3 Trial courts in the Fifth Circuit also continued to order parties to mediation, but without much controversy. 4 The published opinions handed down during this survey period are consistent with the past four surveys. 5 Arbitration has expanded from the 1. See infra Part III.A. Though some unpublished opinions are included in this Article, they have limited weight under Rule 47 of the Fifth Circuit Rules, and thus the focus and broad trends presented here are based on the Fifth Circuit s published opinions. For an excellent discussion of previously published and unpublished opinions in the Fifth Circuit, see Stephen K. Huber, The Arbitration Jurisprudence of the Fifth Circuit, Round IV, 39 TE. TECH L. REV. 463, (2006) [hereinafter Huber, Round IV]. 2. See infra Part III.B. 3. Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 476 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. Jan. 2007) (en banc); see also Huber, Round IV, supra note 1, at E.g., United States v. Medica-Rents Co., Nos. 4:00-CV-483-Y, 4:01-CV-198-Y, 2006 WL (N.D. Tex. 2006) (referring the remaining attorneys fees question to mediation); see Cook Children s Med. Ctr. v. New England PPO Plan of Gen. Consol. Mgmt., Inc., 491 F.3d 266, 277 (5th Cir. June 2007) (denying taxation of mediation fees as costs in an ERISA action); Deville v. United States, 202 F. App x 761, 763 (5th Cir. Oct. 2006) (affirming the denial of a motion to set aside a mediated settlement in which the mediator was deposed). 5. The past four surveys on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) were authored by Professor Stephen K. Huber and provide a comprehensive history of arbitration, as well as a detailed and clearly presented review of previous ADR decisions. This Article builds on those efforts, and though it provides a brief history of ADR law in the Fifth Circuit, Huber s previous articles more comprehensively discuss arbitration

3 2008] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 447 specialized fields of labor relations and international transactions into an oftused litigation substitute. 6 That growth has been nurtured by a broad federal policy favoring arbitration that has not developed linearly or without controversy. 7 The courts have consistently given arbitrators significant leeway when crafting solutions to varied and wide-ranging disputes. 8 That trend continued during the survey period. 9 Though challenging arbitration appears daunting at first, parties seeking to avoid arbitration due to high procedural cost barriers relative to court filing fees may get traction in the right case. 10 Before putting the survey period s cases into historical context and digesting each one, a quick summary may reveal trends. Of course, summaries risk oversimplification, and the full opinion is always more enlightening. The following tables divide current cases into two categories: (1) pre-arbitration challenges (litigants seeking to avoid motions to compel arbitration), and (2) post-arbitration challenges (litigants seeking vacatur of adverse arbitration awards). This categorization reduces each case to a binary format for or against arbitration. In pre-arbitration challenges, compelling arbitration results in a yes indicator. And in post-arbitration challenges, it inverts denying vacatur is registered as a no. To align all decisions for arbitration yes to compelling arbitration and no to vacating its results the columns are reversed in the post-arbitration challenges table. The resulting columns highlight the one outlier in a survey period that generally followed a national policy favoring arbitration when the parties contract for that mode of dispute resolution. 11 cases decided prior to June 1, See generally Huber, Round IV, supra note 1; Stephen K. Huber, The Arbitration Jurisprudence of the Fifth Circuit, Round III, 38 TE. TECH L. REV. 535 (2006) [hereinafter Huber, Round III]; Stephen K. Huber, The Arbitration Jurisprudence of the Fifth Circuit, Round II, 37 TE. TECH L. REV. 531 (2005) [hereinafter Huber, Round II]; Stephen K. Huber, The Arbitration Jurisprudence of the Fifth Circuit, 35 TE. TECH L. REV. 497 (2004) [hereinafter Huber, Round I]. 6. See Huber, Round II, supra note 5, at 532 ( A mere twenty years ago, by contrast, arbitration was a specialized dispute resolution procedure used widely only by trade associations, in labor-management relations, and for international commercial transactions. ). 7. Positive Software, 476 F.3d at 286 (conceding that [a]rbitration may have flaws ); see also Henry S. Noyes, If You (Re)Build It, They Will Come: Contracts to Remake the Rules of Litigation in Arbitration s Image, 30 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL Y 579, 639 (2007) ( Arbitration agreements have been criticized for requiring the consumer to opt-out of the public dispute resolution system, thus giving up the right to a neutral and independent decision-maker, being required to pay for arbitration even if victorious, and losing the right to appeal an arbitration award on all but the most outrageous grounds. ); Amy J. Schmitz, Consideration of Contracting Culture in Enforcing Arbitration Provisions, 81 ST. JOHN S L. REV. 123, 124 (2007); Imre S. Szalai, The Federal Arbitration Act and the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 12 HARV. NEGOT. L. REV. 319, 321 (2007). 8. See Huber, Round I, supra note 5, at (discussing the growing importance and use of arbitration); see also Christopher D. Kratovil, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards in the Fifth Circuit, 38 ST. MARY S L.J. 471, (2007). 9. See infra Part III. 10. See Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 317 F.3d 646, 680 (6th Cir. 2003) (invalidating arbitration agreements that place unreasonable financial burdens on consumers); see also Kenneth A. DeVille, The Jury Is Out: Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements for Medical Malpractice Claims, 28 J. LEGAL MED. 333, 370 (2007) (discussing high costs of arbitration). 11. Preston v. Ferrer, U.S., 128 S. Ct. 978, 978 (2008).

4 448 TEAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:445 Table One: Summary of Pre-Arbitration Cases Case Name Case Summary Compel Arbitration? Trial Court Fifth Circuit Yes No Yes No Overstreet v. Contigroup Cos. 12 Hellenic Inv. Fund, Inc. v. Det Norske Veritas 13 Tittle v. Enron Corp. 14 A chicken company removed contract termination suit and moved to compel arbitration. The farmer responded that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because costs could reach $29,000. The trial court agreed, but the Fifth Circuit reversed because the farmer failed to provide evidence of her financial condition at the time the contract was formed. If a party accepts the benefits of a contract, it may also get the forum selection clause that comes with it by direct-benefit estoppel. Here, a ship purchaser sought the benefits of an agreement containing a forum selection provision, and its admiralty case was dismissed. Insurance companies and others sought to avoid arbitration while insureds sought to compel it. With insurance limits in the court s registry, the remaining fight was between insureds over that money, rather than with the carriers providing it. The trial court s denial of the motion to compel based on the policy s arbitration clause was affirmed. 12. Overstreet v. Contigroup Cos., 462 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. Aug. 2006); see infra Part III.A Hellenic Inv. Fund, Inc. v. Det Norske Veritas, 464 F.3d 514 (5th Cir. Sept. 2006); see infra Part III.A Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. Sept. 2006); see infra Part III.A.3.

5 2008] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 449 Brown v. Pac. Life Ins. Co. 15 Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp. v. Bayer 16 CitiFinancial Corp. v. Harrison 17 Green v. Serv. Corp. Intern. 18 Investors state court claims were removed, remanded, and then stayed while arbitration was compelled by separate federal action. When affirming the order compelling arbitration, the Fifth Circuit addressed jurisdiction under the FAA, invalidation of arbitration clauses (consent and adhesion here), and use of equitable estoppel to send nonparties to the arbitration agreement to arbitration. Omni Hotels brought a declaratory judgment action in federal court seeking an order compelling arbitration of class action employment claims filed in Louisiana state court. The motion was granted, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction; thus, the parties were left to arbitrate. Two of three defendants in a related action filed a new suit to compel arbitration. The second judge compelled arbitration and stayed proceedings in the first judge s court. Because the first judge administratively dismissed the case based on the other order, the Fifth Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief. An employment suit stayed pending compelled arbitration. Because the trial court expressly denied the request that the case be dismissed and not stayed, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 15. Brown v. Pac. Life Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. Aug. 2006); see infra Part III.A Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp. v. Bayer, 235 F. App x 208 (5th Cir. May 2007). 17. CitiFinancial Corp. v. Harrison, 453 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. June 2006); see infra Part III.A Green v. Serv. Corp. Int l, 236 F. App x 898 (5th Cir. May 2007).

9 2008] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 453 II. HISTORICAL BACKDROP EPANDED USE AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION The use and enforcement of arbitration has expanded during the past twenty years because of the Supreme Court s deciding of more than two dozen cases, including two opinions and two granted certiorari petitions during the term. 30 The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is anchored in the expansively interpreted Commerce Clause and has been used to reach cases filed in federal and state courts. 31 Most of the cases heard by the Fifth Circuit (and the Supreme Court) during this twenty-year period were grounded in the FAA 32 and coupled a stated federal policy favoring arbitration 33 with deference to arbitration awards. 34 The federal policy favoring arbitration was 30. See infra Huber, Round I, supra note 5, at (noting that the Supreme Court had decided thirty arbitration related cases); Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., U.S., 128 S. Ct (2008); Preston v. Ferrer, U.S., 128 S. Ct. 978 (2008); 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, U.S., 128 S. Ct (2008) (mem.); Vaden v. Discover Bank, U.S., 128 S. Ct (2008) (mem.); see also Michael E. Johnson & Piret Loone, Court s Second ADR Case Challenges Arbitrator Supremacy, 26 ALTERNATIVES TO THE HIGH COST OF LITIG., Jan ( Arbitration and the FAA appear to be high on the Supreme Court s priority list this term. ). 31. Huber, Round I, supra note 5, at 501 (citing Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, (1967)). However, as many other circuit courts have explained, the parties must have an independent basis for jurisdiction to challenge an arbitration award in federal, rather than state, court. See Smith v. Rush Retail Ctrs., Inc., 360 F.3d 504, 505 n.6 (5th Cir. 2004); Huber, Round II, supra note 5, at 537. Huber mentioned this jurisdictional deficiency in his first Fifth Circuit arbitration survey, and the Supreme Court also noted the unusual nature of FAA jurisdiction in the recent case, Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. See Huber, Round I, supra note 5, at 501, (discussing Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665, 666 (5th Cir. 2002)); Hall St., 128 S. Ct. at See Huber, Round II, supra note 5, at For example, the supremacy of the FAA was reinforced when, in 2004, the Fifth Circuit held that state arbitration law would only be applied in place of federal law if the parties had specifically contracted for such application a general choice of law provision would not suffice. See Action Indus., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 339, (5th Cir. 2004); Huber, Round II, supra note 5, at Federal law also controlled in Washington Mutual Financial Group, LLC v. Bailey, a case in which the Fifth Circuit determined that federal law controls when deciding whether a party is subject to arbitration. See Wash. Mut. Fin. Group, LLC v. Bailey, 364 F.3d 260, 267 n.6 (5th Cir. 2004); Huber, Round II, supra note 5, at 536. Huber suggested that the Fifth Circuit did not fully decide this issue in the Washington Mutual opinion. Huber, Round II, supra note 5, at Id. at 542. Deference was popular during the survey period when the Fifth Circuit embraced the Supreme Court s Bazzle decision by determining that class certification decisions should be decided by an arbitrator rather than a judge. Pedcor Mgmt. Co. Welfare Benefit Plan v. Nat l Pers. of Tex., Inc., 343 F.3d 355, (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003)); Huber, Round II, supra note 5, at 542. Deference is often extended in other ways in arbitration decisions. See Huber, Round II, supra note 5, at 542. For example, the circuit courts traditionally give great deference to district court judges, and arbitration-based decisions are no exception. See id. In the survey period, broad discretion was given to district courts deciding whether to review a challenge to an arbitration award in their own court or transfer it to a neighboring district court. See Action Indus., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, (5th Cir. 2004); Huber, Round II, supra note 5, at 542. This attitude continued in the survey period, in which several Fifth Circuit opinions, as Huber noted, clearly indicate that there are two, and only two, grounds for vacating an arbitration award: (1) manifest disregard for the law, and (2) public policy. Huber, Round III, supra note 5, at 550 (citing Brabham v. A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc., 376 F.3d 377, 385 (5th Cir. 2004)). 34. Huber, Round I, supra note 5, at 505. Consider, for example, the survey period covered in the first round of Huber s Fifth Circuit Arbitration survey. Id. Arbitrability carried the day in Howsam v.

10 454 TEAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:445 recently rearticulated by the Supreme Court in Preston v. Ferrer, which cites Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna. 35 In Buckeye, the Court held that questions of contract illegality are to be decided, initially at least, by an arbitrator rather than a judge. 36 The Court reasoned that arbitration is proper because there is no question that the parties agreed to arbitrate. 37 Rather, the question relates to the substance of the agreement, and as the Court restated in Ferrer, questions concerning the validity of the entire contract are to be resolved by the arbitrator in the first instance, not by a federal or state court. 38 The Court reaffirmed Buckeye in Ferrer in which Fox television personality Judge Alex Ferrer, who arbitrates disputes in a theatrical setting, sought to avoid arbitration with Preston, a California attorney who renders services to persons in the entertainment industry. 39 Because a California statute regulated talent agents, the question became whether Preston was a personal manager or a talent agent. 40 The Court held that the question was arbitrable under the parties agreement, even though it presented a statutory right: Ferrer relinquishes no substantive rights the TAA or other California law may accord him. But under the contract he signed, he cannot escape resolution of those rights in an arbitral forum. 41 III. THE CURRENT SURVEY PERIOD MORE ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION Though the Supreme Court took a short-lived break from ADR cases during the 2006 term, the circuit courts stayed active, and the Supreme Court returned with four arbitration cases during the 2007 term. 42 Indeed, the Fifth Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, (2002); Huber, Round I, supra note 5, at 505. In Howsam, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split by deciding that, when dealing with contracts between securities brokers and their customers, arbitrators should decide arbitrability. Howsam, 537 U.S. at 81-86; Huber, Round I, supra note 5, at 505 (noting that Howsam simply reaffirmed the existing law of the Fifth Circuit as set forth in Smith Barney Shearson, Inc. v. Boone, 47 F.3d 750, (5th Cir. 1995)). The Fifth Circuit subsequently followed Supreme Court precedent by finding arbitrable disputes in the fields of employment, admiralty, and commercial transactions, to name a few. Huber, Round I, supra note 5, at The Fifth Circuit, however, deferred to the courts in other circumstances, including two bankruptcy cases and a case where fraud tainted the agreement to arbitrate. Id. at 509, In a trio of interesting cases, both the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court narrowly avoided the question of whether an arbitration agreement can limit statutory damages. Id. at The Fifth Circuit upheld arbitration over waiver and reaffirmed the limited review available to arbitration awards during the survey period. See id. at Preston v. Ferrer, U.S., 128 S. Ct. 978, 979 (citing Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006)). 36. Buckeye, 546 U.S. at Id. at Ferrer, 128 S. Ct. at 981 (citing Buckeye, 546 U.S. at 440). 39. Id. at See id. at Id. at See cases cited supra note 30.

11 2008] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 455 Circuit decided twenty-three arbitration cases in 2006 and twenty more in As the tables above highlight, the topics decided during the survey period were as varied as they were numerous. A. Pre-Arbitration Challenges Motions to Compel 1. Unconscionability Determined by Circumstances at Time of Contract: Overstreet v. Contigroup Cos. In Overstreet v. Contigroup Cos., a former chicken farmer brought suit in Mississippi state court and alleged that a chicken company fraudulently induced her to enter into a contract, required her to use chemicals that ultimately damaged her farm, and wrongfully terminated her contract. 43 The company removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to compel arbitration. 44 The federal district court held that the plaintiff s financial condition at the time of the motion rendered the arbitration clause unconscionable because the clause s cost-sharing provision could shift between $27,500 and $29,000 to the plaintiff. 45 The company appealed that denial. 46 The Fifth Circuit restricted its review to the unconscionability of the arbitration clause itself, rather than the contract as a whole, by adhering to the rule in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna. 47 Having been forced to presume overall contract validity, the Fifth Circuit enforced the choice of law provision and opted into well-established Georgia law, which focuses the unconscionability test on the circumstances existing at the time the contract was made, rather than those existing... later. 48 Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the trial court record focused on her financial status at the time of the motion to compel arbitration rather than at the time the contract was made. 49 Finding no evidence of financial hardship at contract formation, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by relying entirely on facts relating to Appellee s current financial status. 50 The court reversed and emphasized that the party resisting arbitration shoulders 43. Overstreet v. Contigroup Co., 462 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir. Aug. 2006). 44. Id. 45. Id. at Id. at Id. Under Buckeye, courts are limited to deciding whether arbitration clauses themselves are unconscionable not the validity of the entire contract, which is left to the arbitrator. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, (2006). In Overstreet, the Fifth Circuit followed Buckeye and its earlier opinion in Banc One Acceptance Corp. v. Hill, 367 F.3d 428, 430 (5th Cir. 2004). See Overstreet, 462 F.3d at 411 n Id. at 412 (quoting Results Oriented, Inc. v. Crawford, 538 S.E.2d 73, 79 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)). 49. Id. The trial court found that Mrs. Overstreet and her husband were, at least at the time of the motion, living off of food stamps, Medicaid, and less than $1,000 per month in social security benefits. Id. 50. Id.

12 456 TEAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:445 the burden of proving that the dispute is not arbitrable. 51 The court noted that the Georgia Supreme Court has affirmed that undisclosed arbitration fees [cannot] be the basis for unconscionability. 52 Further, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case with an order to the district court to compel arbitration. 53 This case has since been dismissed with prejudice. 54 Critics will read the bottom line outcome of Overstreet to be inconsistent with a statement in Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph that existence of large arbitration costs could preclude a litigant... from effectively vindicating her federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum. 55 And other courts may reach different outcomes by applying Texas law to a slightly thicker record Benefits of Agreement Estop Denial of Arbitration Clause: Hellenic Investment Fund, Inc. v. Det Norske Veritas In Hellenic Investment Fund, Inc. v. Det Norske Veritas, Hellenic was not directly a party to an arbitration agreement, but because it had accepted the benefits of a contract containing one, Hellenic ended up in arbitration as if it were a party. 57 After Hellenic purchased a vessel from Inlet Navigation Company that had been regularly certified and inspected by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) under a written contract between Inlet and DNV, Hellenic discovered problems with the boat. 58 The contract between Inlet and DNV incorporated DNV s inspection rules, and those rules contained an arbitration clause and a forum selection provision. 59 Hellenic s insurance carrier conducted its own inspection on the day of the sale. 60 Surprised by the insurance carrier s report of several significant defects, Hellenic sued DNV and alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. 61 DNV then invoked its forum selection clause. 62 Though Hellenic was not a party to the Inlet-DNV contract, the district court compelled arbitration and dismissed. 63 Hellenic appealed Id. 52. Id. at 413 (citing Results Oriented, Inc., 548 S.E.2d at 343). 53. Id. 54. Overstreet v. Contigroup Co., No. 2:04CV98-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Oct. 3, 2006). 55. See Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 90 (2000). 56. See, e.g., In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, (Tex. 2001); In re Luna, 175 S.W.3d 315, (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); see also Donald R. Philbin, Jr. & Audrey Lynn Maness, Litigating Arbitration: A 2007 Texas Arbitration Review, BAYLOR L. REV. (forthcoming 2008); Disputing: Conversations About Dispute Resolution, Fifth Circuit Rules on Cost as a Basis for Not Arbitrating, (Aug. 24, 2006, 2:59 pm) (discussing how the Fifth Circuit has handled the issue of prohibitive cost and compelling arbitration). 57. Hellenic Inv. Fund, Inc. v. Det Norske Veritas, 464 F.3d 514, 517 (5th Cir. Sept. 2006). 58. Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. 62. Id. 63. Id. at

13 2008] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 457 The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court under the theory of directbenefit estoppel. 65 The court looked to a factually similar Second Circuit case and concluded that Hellenic benefited by the Inlet-DNV contract because Hellenic relied on the past certifications and inspections from DNV by determining an appropriate purchase price. 66 Thus, Hellenic was left to challenge the value of that service in arbitration proceedings arranged by DNV and Inlet. 67 In light of Hellenic, when a nonparty claims the benefit of a contract containing an arbitration agreement, courts may bind the nonparty to that agreement. 68 Moreover, direct-benefit estoppel applies when a nonsignatory knowingly exploits the agreement containing the arbitration clause Fight Among Insureds Over Proceeds Not Within Arbitration Clause: Tittle v. Enron Corp. In Tittle v. Enron Corp., insurance companies and others sought to avoid arbitration while Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron sought to compel it. 70 Because the insurance companies had interpleaded policy limits in an employee-initiated class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, and because those claims exceeded policy limits, Lay and Skilling understandably did not want to pursue their attorneys fees claims in court because such pursuit would only reduce the monies available to their former employees. 71 Instead, they moved to compel arbitration. 72 On tight facts, the ultimate question became whether disputes among the insureds themselves (not the insurance company and its insureds) fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement contained in the policies. 73 Lay and Skilling argued for a broad interpretation of the preamble language arising out of or related to and cited Supreme Court precedent construing similar 64. Id. at Id. at 517. The court noted that direct-benefit estoppel applies when a non-signatory embraces a contract and knowingly exploits the agreement and then attempts to repudiate it during the course of litigation. Id. at (citing Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov t of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, (5th Cir. 2003); E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber & Resin Intermediates, 269 F.3d 187, 200 (3d Cir. 2001)). 66. Id. at Id. at See id. 69. Id. at 518 (quoting Bridas, 345 F.3d at ). 70. Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463 F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. Sept. 2006). While interpleading policy limits reduced the insurers role, the insurers apparently joined the settling parties by arguing to the Fifth Circuit that the arbitration clause applie[d] only to disputes between the [i]nsurer and the parties defined as insureds under the policies, not between the insureds. Id. 71. See id. at 424 (stating that insurer used the protections of interpleading and therefore remained neutral about the allocation of the $85 million). 72. Id. 73. See id. at 419.

14 458 TEAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:445 language. 74 But the breadth of the preamble was ultimately limited by the remainder of the provision, which the court held did not cover disputes between insureds. 75 The Fifth Circuit began its opinion with a Supreme Court pronouncement that arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to submit. 76 The court used a two-step analysis to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate: it first asked whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, and then whether the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. 77 When evaluating whether the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement, the court applied Texas law and determined that the plain language of the agreement dictated that the arbitration clause was meant to cover only disputes between the insured and the insurers, not disputes among the insureds themselves. 78 Because the insurers had tendered limits, the dispute was not between the insured and the insurer and thus fell outside of the arbitration clause. 79 As a result, the district court s denial of the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. 80 Most likely, Tittle is limited to its bad facts. The insurance proceeds could not cover all the claimants due to the scale of the Enron calamity. 81 For that reason, the insurance companies attempted to remove themselves from the litigation by interpleading their policy limits. 82 Lay and Skilling were then left to dilute the money pot by intervening to fight for their attorneys fees. 83 This unusual case pitted them against other claimants (employee insureds), not the insurance companies. 84 Though the case cites broad arbitration policy, it turns on a specific agreement and hopefully unique facts Id. at 420 (citing Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 406 (1967)). 75. See id. 76. Id. at 418 (quoting AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc ns Workers of Am., 473 U.S. 643, 648 (1986)). 77. Id. 78. Tittle, 463 F.3d at The language of the arbitration clause has been dispositive in other cases. In fact, the same rule governed in the Fifth Circuit s 2004 decision in Vetco Sales, Inc. v. Vinar, 98 F. App x 264, (5th Cir. 2004). In Vetco Sales, the court found that an arbitration clause covering disputes arising out of the contract was not broad enough to cover disputes that arose out of a related contract made later. Id. at 267. The court suggested that an arbitration clause covering all disputes arising out of or related to the first contract would have been broad enough to encompass the dispute at issue in the case. Id. at Tittle, 463 F.3d at Id. at Id. at Id. 83. Id. 84. Id. 85. See id. at

15 2008] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Dismiss Rather Than Stay Arbitrable Disputes: Brown v. Pacific Life Insurance Co. In Brown v. Pacific Life Insurance Co., an upset family of investors, the Browns, brought suit in Louisiana state court against Smith Barney; its representative, Patrick Holt; G.E. Life & Annuity Insurance Company (GE), and Pacific Life Insurance Company. 86 The allegations were fraud, negligence, and breach of various duties under statutory and common law. 87 The defendants removed the state-based action to federal court, and Smith Barney then instituted another federal action. 88 The state court defendants quickly invoked the arbitration clause contained in the client agreement between the Browns and Smith Barney, and moved to stay that action and compel arbitration in the federal action. 89 After some procedural bumps, 90 the district court found that the dispute was covered by the arbitration clause and stayed the federal action while compelling arbitration. 91 The Browns appealed. 92 On appeal, the defendants contested the circuit court s jurisdiction by claiming that a stay was not a final order that allowed appeal under 9 U.S.C. 16(b)(1). 93 The Fifth Circuit disagreed and explained that the order compelling arbitration established appellate jurisdiction. 94 However, the court noted that a stay was improper in this case because there was nothing left for the district court to stay in the Federal Actions after it remanded the State Action and ordered the parties to the arbitration table Brown v. Pac. Life. Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 384, 389 (5th Cir. Aug. 2006). 87. Id. at Id. GE and Pacific later intervened in the federal action. Id. Patrick Holt was notably absent as his presence would have destroyed diversity jurisdiction. Id. at Id. 90. Id. The district court initially remanded the state action and stayed the federal action pending the outcome of the state action. Id. However, the post-order briefing convinced the court otherwise, and it lifted the stay despite the threat of piecemeal litigation in state and federal court. Id. at Id. The two actions were consolidated, though the state action was ultimately remanded. Id. 92. Id. 93. Id. at Id. 95. Id. at 392 ( Unless the district court was staying some undefined or future proceedings in the Federal Actions, its stay order could have only applied to actions against the Appellees in the remanded State Action. Such a stay could not be properly issued pursuant to section 3. ). Because the district court did not specify whether any other federal proceedings could be stayed, and because the circuit court could find none, the circuit court determined that the stay must have been intended for the state court proceedings. Id. Such an action is outside the court s jurisdiction and thus improper. Id. ( That section, by its terms, does not authorize a federal court to enjoin ongoing state proceedings such as the remanded State Action only federal proceedings.... [T]here was nothing left for the district court to stay in the Federal Actions after it remanded the State Action and ordered the parties to the arbitration table. ); see also Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp. v. Bayer, 235 F. App x 208, (5th Cir. May 2007) (reaching the same outcome as the court in Brown).

16 460 TEAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:445 After establishing its own jurisdiction, the court turned to the Browns other arguments. 96 The Browns claimed that the district court erred by denying their motion to dismiss because Holt, who was added to the federal action only after the two suits were consolidated, was a non-diverse party who would destroy diversity jurisdiction. 97 The district court determined that Holt was a dispensable party and declined to formally join him in the federal action. 98 The Fifth Circuit reviewed this determination for an abuse of discretion and found none. 99 The court cited its past opinions finding that threats of prejudice or inconsistent outcomes from piecemeal litigation factors to consider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) are not enough to overcome the strong policy in favor of arbitration. 100 The Browns also claimed that a proper application of the Colorado River abstention doctrine would have required the district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction. 101 The Browns argument echoed their reasoning with respect to Holt s joinder failure of the district court to abstain might create inconsistencies if the state court determined that the claims against Holt were not arbitrable. 102 The Fifth Circuit again affirmed the district court s decision by explaining that the national policy favoring arbitration outweighs piecemeal litigation concerns. 103 The Browns unsuccessful challenges to the district court s jurisdiction were followed by an attack on the arbitration agreement itself. 104 The circuit court first dismissed the Browns argument that they would not have entered into the arbitration agreement if Holt had not misrepresented the terms of their investments; it reasoned that attacks on the validity of the contract as a whole are for the arbitrator decide. 105 The court did examine the Browns assertion that the arbitration clause was a contract of adhesion, thus unenforceable, but the court ultimately upheld the clause. 106 The court noted that the Browns were not forced to agree to the terms of the clauses because they could have avoided the contract entirely by not engaging Smith Barney s services Brown, 462 F.3d at Id. 98. Id. 99. Id. at Id. (citing Doctor s Assocs., Inc. v. Distajo, 66 F.3d 438, 446 (2d Cir. 1995); Snap-On Tools Corp. v. Mason, 18 F.3d 1261, 1267 (5th Cir. 1994)) Id Id. at Id. at The court also found support in the language of the Colorado River opinion itself, emphasizing that [a]bstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule. Id. at (quoting Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976)) Id. at Id. at Id Id. at

17 2008] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 461 The Browns final argument was that the district court erred by estopping the Browns from arguing that GE and Pacific were not bound to arbitrate. 108 The circuit court relied on its previous holding in Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that there was no way to bring actions against GE and Pacific without considering the actions of Smith Barney and Patrick Holt, although it was a close question. 109 Because the Browns failed to allege any tortious acts committed by GE and Pacific that were separate and apart from those of Smith Barney, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court s decision. 110 Overall, the greatest impact of Brown will likely concern jurisdictional issues for both district courts and circuit courts. Arguably, the court s language will encourage dismissals of arbitrable disputes, and not stays. 111 On the other hand, the improper stay in this case did not strip the circuit court of jurisdiction Administrative Dismissal (Stay) Pending Arbitration Not Appealable: CitiFinancial Corp. v. Harrison In CitiFinancial Corp. v. Harrison, which originated in a Mississippi state court, all three defendants successfully removed the action to federal court, and two of the defendants filed a separate action to compel arbitration in the same federal court. 113 The separate action was assigned to a different federal judge, who ultimately compelled arbitration, dismissed the case before him, and stayed proceedings in the first action. 114 The initial federal judge retained jurisdiction over the removed action pending the compelled arbitration, but marked his case administratively dismissed. 115 On appeal, the Fifth Circuit first addressed whether an administratively dismissed case is a final and appealable decision under the FAA. 116 The court determined that it was not by relying on a prior decision that administrative closure of a case was equivalent to a stay. 117 After equating the dismissal to a stay, the court quoted the language of section 16 of the FAA, which provides that [a]n arbitration order entering a stay, as opposed to a dismissal, is not an appealable order. 118 The question then became whether the Fifth Circuit had 108. Id. at Id. (citing Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC, 210 F.3d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 2000)) Id. at See id. at Id CitiFinancial Corp. v. Harrison, 453 F.3d 245, 248 (5th Cir. June 2006) Id. at Id. at Id. at Id Id. (citing 9 U.S.C. 16(b)(1) (2000)).

18 462 TEAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:445 jurisdiction because one of the related actions was still pending. 119 While the court had jurisdiction of the final order, the Fifth Circuit treated the two cases as one, just as the parties and courts below had done. 120 This treatment left a pending matter below and no jurisdiction in the circuit court. 121 Because the plaintiffs substantive claims remained pending before the first judge, the Fifth Circuit concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over that stay order and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 122 By doing so, the court gently reminded district judges that they do not have jurisdiction over cases pending before other Article III judges Specialized Federal Law Results in Arbitration of State Injury Claims: Acosta v. Master Maintenance & Construction Inc. In Acosta v. Master Maintenance & Construction Inc., state court plaintiffs found their tort claims removed to federal court and compelled to arbitration because the subject matter of their intentional tort claims related to arbitration agreements falling under title 9 of the United States Code 9 U.S.C (Convention Act), which enforces the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. 124 The Convention Act gives federal district courts original and removal jurisdiction over cases related to arbitration agreements falling under the Convention. 125 The plaintiffs brought a personal injury suit in Louisiana state court following the September 1996 release of mustard gas at the Georgia Gulf Corporation in Plaquemine, Louisiana. 126 Because the State of Louisiana allows personal injury plaintiffs to bring suit against a defendant s insurers, two foreign insurers of Georgia Gulf were named as defendants. 127 Because the Convention Act allows for removal [w]here the subject matter of an action or proceeding pending in a State court relates to an 119. Id. at Id. The court noted that if the defendant-initiated case were viewed in isolation, then jurisdiction would be proper because an order compelling arbitration leads to an outright dismissal, and an outright dismissal is a final appealable order. Id. The court held, however, that both proceedings must be viewed together and reasoned that [f]unctionally, this case sits in a posture no different than had both orders [(the stay and the order compelling arbitration)] been issued by a single district court judge, a situation in which we would conclude we lacked jurisdiction under the FAA. Id. As a result, the court treated the situation as if one judge had compelled arbitration and administratively dismissed the proceedings, which prevents an appeal as explained in prior cases. Id. at n.11. Thus, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id Id. at 251; see also Green v. Serv. Corp. Int l, 236 F. App x 898, (5th Cir. May 2007) (dismissing an appeal from stay for want of jurisdiction) CitiFinancial Corp., 453 F.3d at Id. at Acosta v. Master Maint. & Constr. Inc., 452 F.3d 373, 374 (5th Cir. June 2006); see 9 U.S.C (2000) Acosta, 452 F.3d at Id Id.

19 2008] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 463 arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention, the foreign insurers removed it to federal court. 128 Because the insurance agreement between Georgia Gulf and the foreign insurers fell within the terms of the Convention Act, the insurers argued that the allegations of an intentional tort against Georgia Gulf created a coverage dispute under the insurance agreement and thus invoked the arbitration clause within that agreement. 129 When the motion to remand was denied, the plaintiffs certified the remand denial for immediate appeal. 130 The Fifth Circuit emphasized the purposes of the Convention Act and its relation to the FAA: (1) to provide the federal courts with broad jurisdiction over Convention Act cases in order to ensure reciprocal treatment of arbitration agreements by cosignatories of the Convention, 131 and (2) to explicitly empower courts to compel arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreements involved. 132 The court then turned to the question of whether the subject matter of the underlying lawsuit relates to the arbitration agreement in the insurance policy between the alleged tortfeasor and the defendant insurers. 133 When interpreting the phrase relates to, the court referenced Beiser v. Weyler, in which it had explained that whenever an arbitration agreement falling under the Convention could conceivably affect the outcome of the plaintiff s case, the agreement relates to the plaintiff s suit. 134 Despite the broad interpretation of relates to, the plaintiffs argued that Louisiana s direct action statute negated any binding effect that the arbitration clause might have. 135 The court disagreed and explained that the claims against the insurer were at least, in part, an assertion of policy coverage, and that an assertion of policy coverage necessarily included the underlying terms of that coverage. 136 In the words of the court, a clause determining the forum for resolution of specific types of disputes relates to a lawsuit that seeks the resolution of such disputes. 137 Thus, a clause requiring arbitration of coverage disputes relates to a dispute over whether the insurer, the insured, or both will ultimately be held liable in tort, and the presence of a direct action statute will not defeat this rule. 138 As a result, the court held that the district court had jurisdiction and affirmed the removal Id. at (quoting 9 U.S.C. 205) Id. at Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (2000)) Id. at Id. at 377 (citing 9 U.S.C. 206) Id Id. (quoting Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665, 669 (5th Cir. 2002)) Id. at Id. at Id Id Id.

20 464 TEAS TECH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40: Agreement to Arbitrate Future Personal Injury Claims Upheld: Terrebonne v. K-Sea Transportation Corp. Terrebonne v. K-Sea Transportation Corp. involved a settlement reached between a seaman, Terrebonne, and his employer, K-Sea, following an injury incurred on board a vessel. 140 The settlement agreement contained a provision obligating the parties to arbitrate future claims related to the initial incident. 141 Three months after the settlement, Terrebonne reinjured himself and brought suit against K-Sea. 142 K-Sea moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to the settlement agreement, and the district court granted the motion over Terrebonne s objections. 143 The arbitrator dismissed Terrebonne s claims and awarded him only the costs of the arbitration. 144 After Terrebonne refused to accept payment from K-Sea, K-Sea moved to reopen the case so the court could enter judgment on the arbitrator s award. 145 The district court re-opened the case, and Terrebonne argued on appeal that the agreement was unenforceable due to his status as a seaman, and that even if the agreement was enforceable, his injury fell outside its scope. 146 The Fifth Circuit rejected both arguments. 147 Terrebonne first claimed that the agreement was unenforceable because the FAA does not apply to contracts of employment with seamen. 148 Terrebonne argued that the arbitration agreement was subsumed by his employment agreement, but the court found that the agreement was a separate and distinct contract. 149 Terrebonne next argued that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it violated section 5 of the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). 150 Among 140. Terrebonne v. K-Sea Transp. Corp., 477 F.3d 271, 274 (5th Cir. Jan. 2007) Id Id Id Id. at Id. at Id. This case follows a long line of seamen-related arbitration exemption cases. For example, in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, the Supreme Court held that the exemption applied only to those who actually worked in interstate commerce. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, (2001). However, the Fifth Circuit later qualified the application of the exemption to workers by determining that the interstate commerce requirement only applied to other workers and was not applicable to the specifically named categories of exempt workers. Brown v. Nabors Offshore Corp., 339 F.3d 391, (5th Cir. 2003). The Fifth Circuit has limited the seamen-exemption in other ways, though. For example, seamen are subject to arbitration in the international context. See Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT, 293 F.3d 270, 274 (5th Cir. 2002) Terrebonne, 477 F.3d at Id. at 278 (citing 9 U.S.C. 1 (2000)) Id. at The court explained that, although K-Sea s agreement covered Terrebonne s maintenance and cure claims, the agreement related only to the employment relationship and did not implicate the employment contract. Id. at 279. The court s explanation is consistent with prior Fifth Circuit employment cases, which clarify that maintenance and cure are a part of the employment relationship and are separate and distinct from contractual rights. Id. (citing Wood v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 691 F.2d 1165, 1170 (5th Cir. 1982)) Id. at 280.

Case: 13-31130 Document: 00512847813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 24, 2014 Lyle

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added

ARBITRATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT FALL 2009 CONFERENCE Informative Website. I have found to be an extremely informative website the University of Missouri s School of Law web communication which can be accessed

Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D December 18, 2009 No. 09-10562 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JM WALKER

Case: 15-10510 Document: 00513424063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 15, 2016 Lyle W.

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,

Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases This article originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2013 As an intellectual property attorney, the federal jurisdiction of patent-related

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, v. Plaintiff

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-353 Lower Tribunal No.

Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

WHOLE COURT NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ March

Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD

Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

Case: 13-60119 Document: 00512554303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT GARY CHENEVERT, v. Plaintiff Appellee United States Court of Appeals Fifth

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CASE LAW UPDATE by Lee Hornberger Arbitration and Mediation Office of Lee Hornberger INTRODUCTION This article reviews some Michigan Supreme Court and Court

Case 3:07-cv-00908-L Document 23 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 9 PageID 482 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Plaintiff,

Case 114-cv-05671-VEC Document 14 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 8 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book product

Filed 8/8/14 Opn filed after rehearing CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MICHAEL M. MOJTAHEDI, Plaintiff and

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BRUCE RASSOLI, et al., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-2827 INTUIT INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Bruce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND NICOLE MARIE CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 05-38S HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, United

2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent

Filed 10/4/13; pub. order 10/28/13 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., D062406 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP

No. 3 09 0033 Filed December 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 KEPPLE AND COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court an Illinois Corporation, ) of the 10th Judicial

REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed May 28, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00543-CV BROWN CONSULTING AND ASSOCIATES, INC. AND A LEARNING CENTER JUST FOR ME,

SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under

Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle

Case 1:13-cv-11596-NMG Document 41 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 12 United States District Court District of Massachusetts BRIAN LENFEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in

Reverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed December 29, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01546-CV OKLAHOMA SURETY COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee

The Fifth Circuit Attempts to Clarify the Interplay Between OCSLA and Maritime Law; Declines to Create a Zone of Danger Cause of Action Under General Maritime Law In Francis Barker v. Hercules Offshore,

Opinion issued June 11, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00636-CV SINHUE TEMPLOS, Appellant V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 104 Filed 01/23/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 06-2026-CM

Shareholder Amy Harris joined Macdonald Devin in 1989 and represents clients in state and federal trial and appellate courts, primarily in insurance defense litigation and insurance coverage. She has served

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIC C. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION DELAWARE TITLE LOANS, INC. AND S. MICHAEL GRAY, Defendants. NO. 08-3322 MEMORANDUM

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 12, 1998 Marilyn L. Graves Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will

Case 1:12-cv-01164-LY Document 38 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION CARONARDA FERNANDA BENBOW V. A-12-CV-1164 LY LIBERTY MUTUAL